The following headline lifted from 'Rush in a Hurry' show notes, March 29, 2011
Barack Obama, King of the World, is Undoing American SovereigntyHe went to the UN, not the US Congress, for approval on bombing Libya.
The weakest, most dangerous president in living memory.
This does illustrate beautifully the reasons for my, and I dare say, Mark and Marshall's disdain for president Barack H. Obama. There are other things we may disagree on as to which is worse, or not as bad as we thought might be the case, but the simple truth is our disdain is based upon his ideology, his pre-campaign activities, and actions since becoming president. And little, if nothing more.
Dick Morris today illustrates just how naive the man-child is:
Obama On The Hook
by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
With each of his policies, Obama takes a gamble. If they work, he's OK. If they don't, he's on the hook for the outcome. Consider the extent of his exposure:That's all a lot for a president to have on his plate. But Obama keeps helping himself to more responsibility without clear exit strategies and with only a hope and a prayer standing between him and disaster. He is now so dependent on the actions of other players -- Egyptian Muslims, Libyan rebels, Saudi insurgents, domestic terrorists, and global economic forces -- that he is no longer in control of his own destiny.
- His involvement in Libya makes him responsible if Gaddafi stays in power and slaughters his own people and/or renews his connections with international terrorism. Obama will be equally responsible should Gaddafi be toppled and an Iraqi-style civil war erupts between his deposed supporters and the new government. As General Powell said "you break it, you own it."
- His support for the rebellion in Egypt and his action in forcing Mubarak from power makes him responsible should the Muslim Brotherhood take over the nation and use it as a basis for promoting terrorism and battling Israel, undoing the Camp David accords.
- Obama's anti-oil drilling policies make him vulnerable should oil prices resume their upward march, particularly so if the Saudi monarchy is toppled and prices surge. In that event, he will be subject to blame for encouraging the wave or revolutions on the one hand and neglecting our domestic energy resources on the other.
- Attorney General Eric Holder's weakening of our domestic anti-terror efforts and his curbs on investigatory tactics make Obama responsible for any major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
- Should the economy enter a double dip recession, it will be Obama's recession. No longer will the public blame Bush, but they will realize that it is Obama's policies which have led to disaster.
He is now truly the hostage of events. Not a good place for a president facing re-election to be.
Obama is in deep doo-doo. As bad as that is in and of itself, consider also that he's in way over his head; he's way out at the back fence, it's night, and there are landmines of poop scattered all the way to the porch. And the only thing that can save his brogans from getting covered in poop is the light from his own halo.
I hate to say it-- and if I'm to be honest I have to say it --but I hope he makes it to the back step unscathed. For all our sakes. The last thing we need is the most powerful man in the world tracking s--t though the house.
I guess you all missed this from March 1, 2011:
ReplyDeleteThe Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution on Tuesday calling for the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and urged Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi to resign and allow a peaceful transition to democracy.
"the simple truth is our disdain is based upon his ideology, his pre-campaign activities, and actions since becoming president. And little, if nothing more."
Except that he's also uppity.
Dick Morris? Cite the last prediction he got right.
"Except that he's also uppity."
ReplyDeleteASSHOLE! YOU! Just then! Are the only one referring to his race! Take your stupid prejudiced ass somewhere else! I will not allow you to hang that on me, you stupid SOB!
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
ReplyDelete--Barack Hussein Obama, lawyer, U.S. Senator, "Famous Constitutional Scholar"; Boston Globe, December 20, 2007
-------
"The Washington Times has it right. Even crook Democrat Charlie Rangel has it right, saying he was angry that Congress was not consulted before the military strikes.
Rangel said that he was undecided on whether the military action against Libya was justified but that he thought that lawmakers and their constituents should have had time to weigh in. "Our presidents seem to believe that all we have to do is go to the U.N. and we go to war," Rangel said."
--From Obama Attacks Libya, and Where's Congress?
---
Obama went to the UN, but not to the Senate. He went to the Arab League, but not to Congress. He consulted with the EU, but not the American people. This is the man we've been warning you about. The man who, during his campaign speech in Germany, declared himself a citizen of the world. Well, it's clear enough he thinks his citizenship to the world trumps his American citizenship. He certainly thinks more of his "world citizenship" than he does his American citizenship, and the oaths he took as president. This president is 'ruling' more by Executive Order, through his Czars and cabinet, than he is through the elected representatives of the citizens he purports to serve as president. Yes, the Executive branch is a co-equal body with the Legislative and Judicial branches, but this simply means he is not a king, and must submit to the checks and balances our Constitution levels upon EACH branch. Whether you realize it or not, whether you believe it or not, we are closer to living in a socialistic autocracy than at any time before in our nation's history. All because one man views himself superior to the laws that made him our leader.
I have to say I'm with Dennis Kucinich on this one. An investigation must begin, and impeachment hearings (if not proceedings) begin.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest failure in the US Presidency? Barack Hussein Obama. More concerned with winning world approval, than with winning American approval.
What really gets me is Obama's propensity for passing the buck. He will not take responsibility for anything that's particularly damaging to his Presidency.
ReplyDeleteIn the same way he passes the responsibility for the "not-war" off on Nato, he passes the blame for his screw ups to others. Isn't he still blaming Bush for the economy?
War isn't a cut and dried matter. Are we at war with Pakistan? We're invading their airspace and firing missiles into their territory, upon their populace, without permission. Same with Yemen? We we at war with the Balkan states under Clinton?
ReplyDeleteThere was going to be a vote in the UN Security Council. France and Great Britain were calling for one. So the options for the US were limited. We could veto, abstain, vote yea or ney. What should the US have done? Abstained with Russia and China? Vetoed the resolution? Voted no and pissed off the Arab League and two of our biggest allies?
Sorry, but as a consequence of Congress spending on Defense like we are still in the middle of the Cold War, we're the world's policemen. So when NATO and the UN undertake actions a lot of those bombs and planes are going to be American.
...without permission. Same with Yemen?"
ReplyDeleteSince you're asking, the answer is no; we are not bombing in Pakistan, or conducting operations in Yemen without permission... from the governments of both Pakistan and Yemen.
Personally, I don't mind the US doing what little it's doing in Libya. For one, Qadaffi is a thug; akin to the likes of Saddam, or would be if left alone for much longer. For another, I hate the idea of Leptus Magnus in the crossfire of a Libyan civil war.
What rankles is the president and democrats treating this action as though it commands more international support than did Iraq. Bush had a coalition of nations 30+ members strong. There is a lot of lying and revisionist history going on to make Obama's actions appear nobler and more righteous than Bush's. This not a pissing contest. Lives are at stake, not the least of whom are those with no options other than to cower somewhere and hope they come out the other side of this conflict; namely the Libyan people.
The truth of the matter is that Bush approached Congress and addressed the nation, acquiring the necessary permissions from his own country BEFORE he acted. Obama went to the UN. Period. Bush went to the UN as well, but not to ask permission, but everything Bush did prior to dropping a single bomb in Iraq was done above board*, and the day it began he was seen performing his duties in soberly fashion. But whatever Obama did prior to the moment we began pounding Libya with million-and-a-half dollar tomahawks is shrouded in semi-secret; we know he went to the UN, but what was he seen doing on that day? He was playing golf. Adding insult to injury he waited 9 days to address the American people. Just for fun, how many weeks did he wait before he jumped into the gulf oil spill imbroglio, with even a nod or mention of it to the American people? 5 weeks? Six?
Are these the actions of a playboy? a party animal? an American gangster? allusions to Emperor Nero aside? Because they certainly didn't appear to be the actions of a Commander in Chief, despite the fact that he IS the Commander in Chief. If he possesses so miniscule of skill managing appearances, is it not a wonder he's bungling everything else?
As I've said, I hope he makes it to the back step unscathed, but I have to wonder just who the jokers advising him are-- which only points to his ever greater lack of skill in choosing advisers. Considering his complete and utter lack of experience governing/managing anything of importance prior to winning the Oval Office, you'd think he'd have sense enough to hire folks to make him look good, occasionally wipe his chin, and keep him from every bungle he's stepped in since January 20, 2009.
----
* with the obvious caveats, of course.
Very well said, Eric. Obama has always impressed me as one who likes to say, "Check it out! I'm president!" without having any idea of how to be one or without really any desire to do what it really takes to be one.
ReplyDelete